Austin Heath/Will Malson
First and foremost, here's a copy of the 1AC: openness ftw! As a critical affirmative, you need to understand theory issues. Here's some general background on critical affs. Note: This is not purely critical. It has plan text to check back a few framework turns. There are mainly 5 ways to attack critical affs: Topicality, Framework, Vagueness, Issue (in this case it's climate change), and Disads. Line-by-line. Negative Arguments Topicality You'd think that since it's a critical affirmative, the press would be different, right? Wrong. If the case did not have a plan, it would be different. However, it does. So your press is going to be pretty much normal. 1'''. Interp: this is going to be pretty much the same. Since the case has plan text, you can't just say "they need a topical plan". You need to show how the plan in a vacuum isn't T. So interp the resolution in such a way as to make the actual plan text non-T. '''2. Standard: is the same as your standard for normal affs. 3'''. Violation: same. '''4. Voters: same. Simple right? There are probably some other T args I'm not thinking of. But be creative. Framework 1. This is a file for the neg on government role-playing. 2. This file is if the case has no plan at all. 3. There's not much to be said here - you argue that policy role-playing is better, and that only you have an internal link to education. Vagueness First, this argument gets worn out pretty darn fast. Second, almost no one I know runs it right. We had a team say that "our plan was vague" and so ... well they never said anything else about it. It was awfully repetitive, no impacts, interpretation, etc. Know what you are running before you run it. On the flipside, we had a team run vagueness with purely an underview of the round - what they would have run if we had specified more, etc. It was a terrific argument. For this case, just run vagueness normally: plan text doesn't specify, etc. Though, in CX, ask for a list of policies they'll be cutting/amending. If they have one, then running vagueness would be a bad idea - the judge just saw them hand you a list of the exact policies and you're saying that's vague? Issue (Climate change) No biggie here. Run that climate change is anthro, if you believe it. Disads Your disads will need some specific impact calculus. Rather than running whatever disad you have to cutting/amending whatever policies, you'll need to pick and choose disads that potentially outweigh rescinding policies that are based on faulty information. Essentially, if you want to run any disad against critical affs, you'll need to either 1. win framework, or 2. say that policies based on faulty information that have a good effect are better than rescinding policies that are faulty. (I wouldn't. I think it's dishonest. But that's up to you to decide.)